Seeds for Soccer Success Planted in 1972

The legislation seemed like no big deal at the time--small print buried at the bottom of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972. The language, however, was precise.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

In other words, equal treatment and by the way, equal scholarships.

Welcome to Title IX, which turns 27 next Friday. The birthday party was held a week ago in Pasadena.

The 20 Americans who won the Women’s World Cup called themselves the Title IX Team. And why not? All of them have played or are playing college soccer, part of the boom in women’s sports created by the legislation President Nixon signed on July 23, 1972.

Title IX produced Dot Richardson, shortstop on the gold medal softball team at the Atlanta Olympics. And Cammi Granato, leader of the gold medal hockey team at the Nagano Olympics. And Sheryl Swoopes and Cynthia Cooper and Chamique Holdsclaw, who played in the WNBA All-Star game.

And last Sunday, it helped deliver a World Cup championship.

“We’ve seen the impact Title IX has had on the field, if not on the organizing of this tournament,” said Marla Messing, president and chief executive officer of the Women’s World Cup organizing committee. “These women were children or not even born when Title IX was passed. They call themselves ‘Title IX babies,’ and they have reaped the benefits and been able to play soccer their whole lives.

“What Title IX has done for them is make it possible to climb to the heights they reached. And it has showed to others the possibilities there are for women in sports.”

The players were fully aware of its impact.

“We all know that there was a time when girls didn’t have equal opportunities that the men had,” said Tiffeny Milbrett, who played at the University of Portland. “Programs had to be built from scratch when Title IX was passed and it’s taken this long for it to really show.

“There are many countries where the women don’t have the opportunities we’ve had and might never get them. So Title IX is a major reason the U.S. is able to compete and do well on the highest levels.”

Goaltender Briana Scurry, whose save on the third penalty shot set the stage for the victory over China, played at the University of Massachusetts.

“We never really went through what girls did years ago, when there was no Title IX and they had no place to play,” she said. “What we’ve been able to do as a team in winning in the Olympics and in the World Cup is because of Title IX and the way it opened up the opportunities for us as women to compete in sports.”

Title IX did not have an easy road. From the beginning, some lawmakers tried to curtail its impact. In 1974, Sen. John Tower proposed an amendment to exempt moneymaking sports from the provision. It was rejected.

In 1975 and 1977, Sen. Jesse Helms introduced bills to prohibit the legislation from being applied to athletics that were not a required part of the curriculum. Both times, the Senate refused to act.

When Nixon signed the act, about 31,000 women were involved in college sports. That number has more than tripled.

Spending on athletic scholarships for women has gone from less than $100,000 to almost $200 million. There were an average of 2.1 women’s college teams in 1972. That number is now at a record 7.7 per school.

According to a survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, 40 percent of athletes at Division I schools in 1997-98 were women, a 5 percent increase from 1996-97. Women also received 40 percent of athletic scholarship budgets, a 14 percent rise from the previous year.

Olympic champion swimmer Donna de Varona, chair of the World Cup organizing committee, credited the U.S. Soccer Federation and Title IX with the American team’s success.

“From a handful, we went to 741 soccer programs,” she said. “That’s what nurtures those skills and produces great teams.”

Yet from all those positives, there remain some negatives.

“FIFA offers no prize money ct all for the women,” de Varona said, referring to soccer’s ruling body. “They do for the men. The men got $300,000 for making the World Cup and $1 million for every game played. They can afford to do it. There’s so much in the pool. It’s not fair. They have to do it.

“We’re dealing with attitudes and ways of thinking that we’ve had to battle for years. And we’re winning.”